the apostles were invited by the priests, and by the high priest Caiaphas, to the temple; and how James the archbishop stood upon the top of the stairs, and for seven days, one after another, proved out of the Lord's scriptures, to the whole body of the people, that Jesus was the Christ.'

The title of archbishop may be allowed to be added by Rufinus, or some other interpolater: but Dominic Scriptures, or the Lord's Scriptures, is a term often used by the christian writers of the second century. It must be owned to be out of character to speak of the scriptures of the New Testament in a dispute with Caiaphas, at which time none of them were written. But the author here forgot himself. And indeed it is next to impossible for a writer not to say some things improperly in a work of this kind, and of this length.

However, after all, perhaps hereby are meant only the scriptures of the Old Testament, and this phrase may be judged equivalent to the written word of God.'

18. It may be now proper to distinguish the passages alleged out of these books of Recognitions, and observe the value of them. Here are passages of our four gospels: and one might conclude that the author owned them all, were it not for a' difficulty which I shall mention by and by; which may render it doubtful whether he used the four gospels, or some one gospel containing in it all these things. The reader will consider whether this difficulty be of any inoment. He seems to own the first epistle of St. John, and the book of the Revelation. He was well acquainted too with the book of the Acts of the Apostles; but how far he owned it, I cannot say. As for the passages relating to St. Paul's epistles, they may be reckoned not very m material; or however not sufficient to prove, that they were esteemed by this writer to be of authority. It may be suspected that the author had no great kindness for the apostle Paul; and for that reason made as little use of his epistles, and of the Acts of the Apostles, as might be, though he was well enough acquainted with them.

This author, whoever he be, bears testimony likewise to many principal facts of the New Testament. He gives"

* Et Jacobus archiepiscopus stans in summis gradibus, per septem continuos dies, universo populo de Scripturis Dominicis adsignaverit, quod Jesus esset Christus. L. i. sect. 73.

1 See below, num. v. 3. of this chapter.

m Equidem observavi, nec in Clementinis, nec in Recognitionibus, quæ apocrypha sæpe diximus ab Ebionais fuisse depravata, Paulum apostolum citatum inveniri. Coteler. Annot. ad Clementin. Homil. xix. sect. 2.

n L. iv. sect. 34.

an account of our Lord's temptation. He mentions the choice of the twelve apostles, and afterwards of other seventy-two disciples. In one place he speaks of the twelve apostles in such a manner, as if he intended to exclude Paul from the honour of the apostleship, and even to deny him the character of a 'sufficient and faithful preacher of Christ's word.' Here are also relations of the miracles of our blessed Lord's ministry, and of his death and resurrection, and the extraordinary signs attending those

events.

20. To all these things does this writer bear witness. And yet, from his sly insinuations, and injurious reflections upon St. Paul, it may be suspected that he was a mere Ebionite; the ancients assuring us that this sect of christians rejected the authority of that apostle and his epistles. If this be our author's real character, what has been here alleged from this work ought to be considered as one instance of the advantage which may be made of the sentiments of those called heretics, for confirming the evangelical scriptures and history; which I hope will appear more fully hereafter.

V. Hitherto I have taken no notice of the Clementine Homilies; nor do I intend a large account of them; but it may be thought improper to omit them entirely. They are nineteen Homilies in Greek, published by Cotelerius, with two letters prefixed; one of them written in the name of Peter, the other in the name of Clement, to James, bishop of Jerusalem: in which last letter they are intitled Clement's Epitome of the Preaching and Travels of Peter.' But it may be questioned whether one or both these letters do not belong to the Recognitions. Photiust seems to • L. i. sect. 40.

P Propter quod observate cautius, ut nulli doctorum credatis, nisi qui Jacobi fratris Domini ex Hierusalem detulerit testimonium, vel ejus quicunque post ipsum fuerit. Nisi enim quis illuc ascenderit, et ibi fuerit probatus quod sit doctor idoneus, et fidelis, ad prædicandum Christi verbum; nisi inquam, inde detulerit testimonium, recipiendus omnino non est. Sed neque propheta, neque apostolus, in hoc tempore, speretur a vobis aliquis alius præter nos. Unus enim est verus propheta cujus nos duodecim apostoli verba prædicamus. Ipse enim est annus Dei acceptus, nos apostolos habens duodecim menses. L. iv. sect. 35. This is absolutely to exclude St. Paul, who was an apostle' neither of men, nor by man,' as he openly professes, Gal. i. 1. See also ver. 11, 12, 17; ch. ii. 6. Against which claims of St. Paul this discourse of our author seems to be designedly levelled; as also possibly against 2 Cor. ii. 16, where St. Paul says, "And who is sufficient for these things?" or, as some read, "Who is so sufficient for these things?" Vid. Mill. in loc. a L. i. sect. 6, 7. 1. v. sect. 10, 11. r L. i. sect. 41–43. . Irenæ. 1. i. c. 26. al. 25. Orig. cont. Cels. 1. v. p. 274. Euseb. H. Ę 1. iii. cap. 27. Cod. 112, 113.

favour this supposition: at least, in his time, they were both prefixed to some editions of the Recognitions. The nineteenth Homily is imperfect at the end: and there is wanting another whole Homily to complete the number of twenty.

V

Le Clerc thinks that these Clementine Homilies were composed by an Ebionite in the second century. The learned Benedictine, Bernard Montfauçon, is of a quite different opinion, supposing them to have been forged much later; and not to have been mentioned by any author, till long after the age of St. Athanasius. This is one of his arguments, that the Synopsis, in which the Clementines are mentioned, was not composed by that father. Grabe says, the Clementines spoken of in that Synopsis, are not the same with our Clementine Homilies; which is very probable: those Clementines, mentioned in the Synopsis, are not the Clementine Homilies, but the Clementine Epitome, published by Cotelerius at the end of the Homilies. Montfauçon's argument, therefore, for the late age of the Synopsis may be very good, as I think it is; and Le Clerc too may judge very rightly about the time of writing the Homilies. For though these Clementine Homilies are ancient, they were not cited by the name of Clementines; but were either reckoned another edition of the Recognitions, or called the Travels of Peter,' or the Disputation of Peter and Appion.' That they were sometimes mentioned by this last title, is probable, as will be shown presently.

6

6

X

In these Homilies is the same fictitious history of the separation of Clement, and his father, and mother, and brethren, and their recognizing each other, with that in the Recognitions: and there is a great agreement between these two works in several other things, though each has some other matters wanting in the other. Rufinus y says that there were two editions of the Recognitions: it is likely that by the other, which he left untranslated, he2 means

u

Sequuntur ipsa Clementina,- -opus hominis Ebionitæ, qui vixit seculo secundo. Præf. ad Patres Apost. sect. 6.

▾ Ad hæc in apocryphis Novi Testamenti numèrantur in Synopsi KλnμevTia, seu Homilia Clementinæ, quarum mentionem primo reperimus, diu post Athanasii ævum, apud Nicephorum Patriarcham. Sunt enim illæ opus diversum a Recognitionibus, quarum Origenes, Rufinus, et alii meminere, licet ejusdem sint argumenti, et, ut videtur, postea confictæ. In Synops. Scripturæ Admonit. apud Athanasii Op. T. ii. p. 125.

W

Spicil. T. i. p. 287.

* Vid. Homil. xii. xiii. xiv.

y Puto quod non te lateat, Clementis hujus in Græco ejusdem operis Avayvwσɛwv, hoc est, Recognitionum, duas editiones haberi; et duo corpora esse librorum, in aliquantis quidem diversa, in multis tamen ejusdem narrationis. Rufin. Præf. ad Gaudentium.

Vid. Cave, H. L. P. i. p. 19. in Clement. Rom.

these Homilies. He does not say which is the first edition, though that may be reckoned a point of some moment, if we could determine it. I am apt to think the Clementine Homilies may be the original, or the first edition, and the Recognitions an improvement of them, because they appear more finished and artificial.

6

This work bids fair for being the same with that censured by Eusebius, under the title of Dialogues of Peter and Appion.' The whole work is prolix; and in the fourth, fifth, and sixth Homilies, is a history of Appion, and of a dispute with him. It is true, as Grabe a well observes, this dispute with Appion is not managed by Peter himself, but by Clement in his absence. But I do not know whether that be sufficient to overthrow this supposition; since Clement is reckoned the disciple of Peter, and his most intimate friend. And afterwards, in the seventh Homily, Appion is joined with Simon of Samaria, and others, who publicly declaim against Peter to the multitude. Not to add, that Clement relates that whole disputation to Peter, and receives his applauses for it.

Nor do I perceive that Photius says any thing to the prejudice of this opinion; he rather confirms it. In his article of the genuine and supposititious writings of Clement of Rome, the books mentioned by him are these five: the Constitutions; the Recognitions, under several titles, which he says are full of blasphemies against the Son, according to the Arian doctrine; the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians; the second epistle, which he says is rejected as spurious; and the long disputation,' as it is entitled, of Peter and Appion,' which he likewise calls spurious. If hereby he does not mean the Clementine Homilies, they are quite omitted, which is not likely.

b

6

Nicephorus Callisti, in the fourteenth century, suspected the Clementines then in use in the church, to be the Dialogue of Peter and Appion. He had only one difficulty: that Dialogue was censured by Eusebius, as not agreeable to the right faith; whereas the book called the Clementines, in the time of Nicephorus, was highly approved in the church. But the reason of this I take to be very evident: his Clementines are the Clementine Epitome, as it is called, in which the Clementine Homilies are reformed and new

- Εγω δε ει μεν τα νυν παρ' ἡμῖν Κλημεντια ονομαζομενα λεγει, ου πειθομαι· ταυτα γαρ τη εκκλησια και ευπαράδεκτα ει δε έτερα εισι παρα ταυτα, λεγειν εκ εχω. Nic. Call. Hist. E. 1. iii. c. 18. Vid. Testimonia de Clementinis, apud Patres Apost.

modelled. The most obnoxious or offensive things, as not orthodox, had been left out, and other sentiments were inserted, agreeable to the age of him who reformed them. But still Nicephorus suspected those Clementines might be the Dialogue of Peter and Appion. We have much more reason to think the Clementine Homilies are the work which was sometimes spoken of under that title.

If our conjecture is not approved of, we must suppose that Dialogue to be lost; which is the opinion of Fabricius.

d

1. In these Homilies are many passages of the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, and divers of them are different from those of the same gospels in the Recognitions. There is very little which can be certainly said to be taken from St. Mark's gospel, though Cotelerius has sometimes put it in the margin. We have these words mentioned as Christ's, after several other which are in Matthew and Luke: Hear, Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord :' which seems to be a reference to Mark xii. 29. He is supposed to refer, in several places, to Mark xii. 24; but I do not see why he may not as well intend Matt. xxii. 29. It is thought likewise that he refers to Mark i. 13, in what he says of our Lord's temptation in the wilderness. The small number of plain references to this gospel may be accounted for from its great agreement with the other two gospels just mentioned. There are several passages out of St. John's gospel: I shall mention some of them presently. But there is scarce any one passage which can be affirmed to be taken out of St. Paul's epistles, or any other book of the New Testament. However, in the before-mentioned letter of Clement to James, Peter is introduced speaking of his approaching death, which he had been taught by his Lord and Master, Jesus Christ,' much in the same manner as it is mentioned, 2 Pet. i. 14.

6

2. The words of Christ are mentioned and appealed to

Disputatio uberior Petri et Appionis Eusebio memorata et Hieronymo intercidit; falliturque Oudinus [de Script. Ex. Eccl. T. i. cap. 22.] qui eam a Cotelerio, sub nomine Clementinorum, editam esse sibi persuasit. J. A. Fabric. Cod. Apocr. N. T. Part iii. p. 603. Hamb. 8vo. 1719.

d Εφη, Ακεε, Ισραηλ, Κυριος ὁ Θεος ύμων Κυριος εἰς εσιν. Hom. iii. sect. 57. e Hom. ii. sect. 51. iii. sect. 50. xix. sect. 20.

f Qui misit nos, Dominus noster et propheta, narravit nobis, quemadmodum diabolus quadraginta diebus cum eo collocutus, nihilque contra valens, promiserit se ex suis sectatoribus apostolos ad fraudem faciendam missurum. Hom. xii. sect. 35. Jam ergo confitetur, per quadraginta dies collocutum tentavisse se. Hom. ix. sect. 2.

g Vid. Coteler. Not. in Hom. xix. sect. 2. in part cited above, page 375. h Sect. 2.